Notebook chipsets or integrated gfx to avoid?

[Cryolokk]

I'm getting a cheap laptop and am wondering if there are any chipsets that are notoriously bad?

Also as it will be cheap are there any integrated graphics that are really bad and should be avoided, or are they all about the same?

One Acer model I'm considering has Mirage 2 integrated graphics and a SiS chipset with a Turion ML (I know the MT is better for longer life but I can't find one).

The notebook will be used for taking notes and the odd powerpoint presentation, No gaming, No video rendering, and likely no photoshop type work. The most strenuous thing will be watching a DVD, am I correct in assuming integrated graphics will be ok?

I'm either getting a Turion or a Pentium-M, likely a Turion as they are cheaper, if anyone has a suggestion on a specific model that would be cool. If I go for the Pentium-M i'll make sure to get an intel chipset, but I have no clue on Turion chipsets.

Important things:

thin/light
low cost
long battery life
512MB minimum
20GB HD minimum (5400 rpm if at all possible)
DVD (burner preferable but not required)

I'd prefer widescreen around 14", but normal aspect ratio is fine if no widescreens are available in the low end.

[mynameis]

I would stick with an ATI 200M Xpress or Intel GMA900/950 when it comes to integrated graphics. Check out Compaq V2000Z, you can order one from Compaq with a Turion 64 for under $600. Awhile back you could find a pretty well equiped one at Office Max, CC, and BB for a very reasonable price after rebate, I haven't paid attention to lately.

If you want the best battery life, Pentium-M or Core Duo/Solo is the way to go.

[kpxgq]

Turion MT aint that bad for battery life and performance, esp considering price.

I want Merom!